About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
reading him miranda rights. what does that mean for any information they might be getting? >> well, it's very important to the people -- we've been talking a lot about miranda and i think it's important for people to understand what it does and doesn't mean. if you are questioned without your miranda rights, all that means is that the statements you make cannot be used against you in a criminal court. they can be used against other people. they can be used as leads to other inquiries. and you can still be prosecuted with lots of other evidence. all it means is that those statements cannot be used against you. from what it certainly appears there is lots of other evidence against this fellow. so the fact that the government might be giving up the chance to use some of it is not much of a sacrifice on the part of the government. >> he also at this point could indicate he wants an attorney and doesn't want to answer any questions, correct? >> absolutely. even when someone doesn't get miranda rights, the statements still have to be voluntary. he can't be tortured. he can't be waterboarded.
of public safety exception before you give him his miranda rights, all that talk of naming him as an enemy combatant, all of that is moot right now. they've gone forward with the official proceedings. >> well, they may have used the public safety exception, and apparently they were using it to question him, and he responded in some way given his medical condition. but certainly now that he has a lawyer, that period, however long it was, is over. and you're right, the enemy combatant thing was a nonstarter from the never going to happen. this is a criminal case in federal court in massachusetts, and that's where it will stay until it's resolved one way or another. >> it's going to take a while. thanks very much, jeffrey. much more on what's going on in this boston investigation coming up here in "the situation room" 0. >>> also, another terror plot released today, new information. canadian authorities announcing the arrest of two men believed to be part of a terror plot to attack a passenger train that may have been heading towards the united states, the plot said to have an alleged connect
miranda rights. >> >> not not at all. he'll be entitled to his american rights and i think if we don't do that, we become less of ourselves. we are americans. we have beauties in this system. we some problems in the system. i think if we do anything other than embrace what america is all about, then the terrorist would have won and i think that is the absolute wrong thing to do. >> congressman, thanks so much. good to see you. appreciate it. >>> we know now that 19-year-old dzhokhar tsarnaev will face federal terrorism charges and with all the photographs and video, is the case a slam dunk for prosecutors? we'll look into that next. i have low testosterone. there, i said it. how did i know? well, i didn't really. see, i figured low testosterone would decrease my sex drive... but when i started losing energy and became moody... that's when i had an honest conversation with my doctor. we discussed all the symptoms... then he gave me some blood tests. showed it was low t. that's it. it was a number -- not just me. [ male announcer ] today, men with low t have androgel 1.62% (testosterone gel
dzhokhar tsarnaev to investigators, we do not know if that was before or after he received his miranda warnings or before or after he obtained counsel. that's an excellent point. one of the things we do know that he is saying apparently is that it was his brother tamerlan who was the mastermind here. is that something that could be helpful to his defense if he was merely following his brother? >> well, it will be helpful to his defense in the sense of mitigating the penalty that he might end up suffering. from what i've read and what i've seen, he's clearly as culpable as his brother. the videos that they picked up, and the statements that he made to the driver of the suv, all would indicate that he was a willing participant in this crime, and also the fact that he fled from the scene would further indicate his willingness to participate in this crime. however, any influence that he might have suffered from his brother, his brother's influence on him, may again go to mitigate any penalty that might be imposed upon him. whether he ends up getting the death penalty or whether he ends up
was provided before or after that judge/magistrate was there and r read him his miranda rights? the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney? >> sources have indicated to us that was part of a questioning that they did under the -- fbi agent does under a national security exemption, before he was assigned counsel. they had the ability in the interest of public safety exception to be able to ask questions, were there additional coconspirators, where and were there additional explosives. the source of things you want to know immediately in order to protect the public. presumably base wanted on what we are hearing, those are the questions they asked and the kinds of responses prior to the first appearance yesterday. >> that would fit in with the public safety exception in the there a in providing the miranda rights to this criminal defendant as he now is, charges have been read to him. fran, we'll stay in close touch with you, fran townsend. much more from boston in just a moment. other news that we're watching as well. the fbi, back in washington, up on capitol hill, lawmake
. just to confirm, this -- dzhokhar tsarnaev has not yet been read his miranda rights, correct? >> i have to say i don't know. because there was an initial appearance today, that's why this complaint is out. the circuit executive, the administrator of this area, has put out a statement saying there was an initial appearance before a magistrate judge. that is as far as i understand it an arraignment. i have never heard of an arraignment without an attorney present. they didn't mention an attorney present. if an attorney is present, the attorney will simply say to the client, you -- don't answer questions. at that point, the attorney is the person the prosecutor is supposed to deal with. i have to say, there is information out there that we don't have. whether an attorney was present, whether this was an actual arraignment, i think we just need to hold off on that until we get more information. >> we're holding off. still so early this all happened. >> before we let deb feyerick go and chase down that lead she was referring to, deb, i was wondering, is there anything else that stands out in
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)